Computational Controversy

  • Benjamin Timmermans
  • Tobias Kuhn
  • Kaspar Beelen
  • Lora Aroyo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10540)

Abstract

Climate change, vaccination, abortion, Trump: Many topics are surrounded by fierce controversies. The nature of such heated debates and their elements have been studied extensively in the social science literature. More recently, various computational approaches to controversy analysis have appeared, using new data sources such as Wikipedia, which help us now better understand these phenomena. However, compared to what social sciences have discovered about such debates, the existing computational approaches mostly focus on just a few of the many important aspects around the concept of controversies. In order to link the two strands, we provide and evaluate here a controversy model that is both, rooted in the findings of the social science literature and at the same time strongly linked to computational methods. We show how this model can lead to computational controversy analytics that cover all of the crucial aspects that make up a controversy.

References

  1. 1.
    Andris, C., Lee, D., Hamilton, M.J., Martino, M., Gunning, C.E., Selden, J.A.: The rise of partisanship and super-cooperators in the us house of representatives. PLoS ONE 10(4), e0123507 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aroyo, L., Welty, C.: The three sides of crowdtruth. J. Hum. Computat. 1, 31–34 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Awadallah, R., Ramanath, M., Weikum, G.: Opinions network for politically controversial topics. In: Proceedings of the 1st edn. Workshop on Politics, Elections and Data, pp. 15–22. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blei, D.M., Ng, A.Y., Jordan, M.I.: Latent dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 993–1022 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boggs, S.T.: The development of verbal disputing in part-hawaiian children. Lang. Soc. 7(03), 325–344 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borra, E., Weltevrede, E., Ciuccarelli, P., Kaltenbrunner, A., Laniado, D., Magni, G., Mauri, M., Rogers, R., Venturini, T.: Societal controversies in wikipedia articles. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2015, pp. 193–196. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Box, G.E., Jenkins, G.M., Reinsel, G.C., Ljung, G.M.: Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control. Wiley (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brenneis, D., Lein, L.: You fruithead: a sociolinguistic approach to children’s dispute settlement. Child Discourse 49, 65 (1977)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Casteigts, A., Flocchini, P., Quattrociocchi, W., Santoro, N.: Time-varying graphs and dynamic networks. Int. J. Parallel Emergent Distrib. Syst. 27(5), 387–408 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Choi, Y., Jung, Y., Myaeng, S.-H.: Identifying controversial issues and their sub-topics in news articles. In: Chen, H., Chau, M., Li, S., Urs, S., Srinivasa, S., Wang, G.A. (eds.) PAISI 2010. LNCS, vol. 6122, pp. 140–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13601-6_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarke, A.E.: Controversy and the development of reproductive sciences. Soc. Probl. 37(1), 18–37 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Converse, P.E.: The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. Survey Research Center. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1962)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dalgalarrondo, S., Urfalino, P.: Tragic choice, controversy, and public decision-making: the case in france of random selection of aids patients for treatment (“lot-drawing”). In: Revue française de sociologie, pp. 3–40 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dardis, F.E., Baumgartner, F.R., Boydstun, A.E., De Boef, S., Shen, F.: Media framing of capital punishment and its impact on individuals’ cognitive responses. Mass Commun. Soc. 11(2), 115–140 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dori-Hacohen, S., Allan, J.: Automated controversy detection on the web. In: Hanbury, A., Kazai, G., Rauber, A., Fuhr, N. (eds.) ECIR 2015. LNCS, vol. 9022, pp. 423–434. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16354-3_46 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Entman, R.M.: Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J. Commun. 43(4), 51–58 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feldman, R.: Techniques and applications for sentiment analysis. Commun. ACM 56(4), 82–89 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freeden, M.: Political concepts and ideological morphology. J. Polit. Philosophy 2(2), 140–164 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gallie, W.B.: Essentially Contested Concepts. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 56, pp. 167–198. JSTOR (1955)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garimella, K., De Francisci Morales, G., Gionis, A., Mathioudakis, M.: Quantifying controversy in social media. In: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 33–42. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garrison, W.A., Modigliani, A.: The changing culture of affirmative action. In: Equal Employment Opportunity: Labor Market Discrimination and Public Policy, vol. 373 (1994)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hallberg, M., Rigné, E.-M.: Child sexual abuse-a study of controversy and construction. Acta Sociol. 37(2), 141–163 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Horst, M.: Collective closure? public debate as the solution to controversies about science and technology. Acta Sociol. 53(3), 195–211 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jasper, J.M.: The political life cycle of technological controversies. Soc. Forces 67(2), 357–377 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kakavá, C.: Discourse and conflict. In: The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, pp. 650–670 (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kempner, J., Merz, J.F., Bosk, C.L.: Forbidden knowledge: public controversy and the production of nonknowledge1. In: Sociological Forum, vol. 26, pp. 475–500. Wiley Online Library (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lein, L., Brenneis, D.: Children’s disputes in three speach communities. Lang. Soc. 7(03), 299–323 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Levi, D.J., Holder, E.E.: Psychological factors in the nuclear power controversy. Polit. Psychol., 445–457 (1988)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu, B., Chen-Chuan-Chang, K.: Editorial: special issue on web content mining. ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 6(2), 1–4 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lourentzou, I., Dyer, G., Sharma, A., Zhai, C.: Hotspots of news articles: joint mining of news text & social media to discover controversial points in news. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pp. 2948–2950. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maedche, A., Staab, S.: Ontology learning for the semantic web. IEEE Intell. Syst. 16(2), 72–79 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Martin, B.: The controversy manual. A practical guide for understanding and participating in scientific and technological controversies. Sparsnäs, Sweden, Reading, Massachusetts (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maynard-Moody, S.: Managing controversies over science: the case of fetal research. J. Public Adm. Res. Theor.: J-PART, 5–18 (1995)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mejova, Y., Zhang, A.X., Diakopoulos, N., Castillo, C.: Controversy and sentiment in online news. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.8152 (2014)
  35. 35.
    Millar, F.E., Rogers, L.E., Bavelas, J.B.: Identifying patterns of verbal conflict in interpersonal dynamics. West. J. Commun. (includes Commun. Rep.) 48(3), 231–246 (1984)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Misra, A., Walker, M.A.: Topic independent identification of agreement and disagreement in social media dialogue. In: Conference of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, p. 920 (2013)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nadeau, D., Sekine, S.: A survey of named entity recognition and classification. Lingvisticae Investigationes 30(1), 3–26 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pang, B., Lee, L., et al.: Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found. Trends\(\textregistered \) Inf. Retrieval, 2(1–2), 135 (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pomerantz, A.: Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shaped (1984)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Popescu, A.-M., Pennacchiotti, M.: Detecting controversial events from twitter. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 1873–1876. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Scott, J.: Social Network Analysis. Sage (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tarrow, S.: Polarization and convergence in academic controversies. Theory Soc. 37(6), 513–536 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Verschueren, J.: Ideology in Language Use: Pragmatic Guidelines for Empirical Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Timmermans
    • 1
  • Tobias Kuhn
    • 1
  • Kaspar Beelen
    • 2
  • Lora Aroyo
    • 1
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
  2. 2.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations